In a suit for declaration of title, the plaintiff must prove ownership; failure to seek possession forfeits claims against an adverse possessor.

Judgment :

Rajani Dubey, J.

1. The present appeal has been preferred by the appellants challenging the judgment and decree dated 01.01.2019 passed by the learned Additional District Judge, Bhatapara, District Balodabazar–Bhatapara (C.G.) in Civil Suit No. 29-A/2011, whereby the suit filed by the plaintiff/appellant was dismissed and the counter-claim preferred by the respondent No.1 was allowed. For the sake of convenience, the parties shall hereinafter be referred to as they were arrayed before the learned Trial Court.

2. The pleadings made in the plaint by the plaintiff, are that the suit land situated at Mauja Dhurrabandha, P.H. No. 19, R.N.M., Tehsil Bhatapara, as described in Schedule ‘A’ appended to the plaint, bearing Khasra No. 11 and admeasuring 15.95 acres, was purchased by the plaintiff from defendant No. 1 on 21.03.1972 for a total consideration of Rs. 1,200/-. Upon receipt of the consideration amount, defendant No. 1 delivered possession of the suit land to the plaintiff and since then the plaintiff has been in continuous, peaceful, and uninterrupted possession thereof. It is further pleaded that due to unavoidable circumstances, the plaintiff could not get her name mutated in the revenue records, as a result of which the name of defendant No. 1 continued to be recorded as the owner, though the plaintiff remained in actual physical possession of the land. Subsequently, the plaintiff submitted an application before the Court of the Tehsildar, Bhatapara, seeking mutation of his name in the revenue records. In Revenue Case No. 10-A/6 of 2006–07, an attorney appeared on behalf of defendant No. 1 on 19.04.2006. The plaintiff alleges that without obtaining any decree declaring the earlier sale transaction to be illegal or non-binding, defendant No. 1, taking undue advantage of her name being recorded in the revenue records, executed a registered sale deed dated 13.10.2011 in favour of defendant No. 2 for a purported consideration of Rs. 19,43,000/-. The said sale deed, according to the plaintiff, is sham, collusive and without consideration, executed with the intention to harass the plaintiff and to defeat her lawful rights.

It is further contended that the plaintiff has been in possession of the suit land since the date of purchase, i.e., 21.03.1972, and that defendant No. 1 had no authority to alienate the suit land in favour of defendant No. 2. Despite having knowledge of the plaintiff’s ownership and possession, defendant No. 2 allegedly purchased the suit land. The execution of the impugned sale deed has adversely affected the plaintiff’s title, giving rise to the present cause of action, which arose on 13.10.2011. On these grounds, the plaintiff has instituted the present suit seeking a declaration of title over the suit land, a decree of permanent injunction restraining the defendants from interfering with his peaceful possession and a further declaration that the sale deed dated 13.10.2011 executed by defendant No. 1 in favour of defendant No. 2 is illegal, void and not binding upon the plaintiff.

3. In turn, the defendant No.1 filed her written statement denying the facts and stating that the suit land is not owned or possessed by the plaintiff. The suit land was owned and possessed by Defendant No. 1 and she has sold the land to Defendant No. 2 and defendant No.2 is currently in physical possession of the suit land. Defendant No. 1 has not sold the suit land to the